SeeRoy: As the owner of an EM5 (I guess we have to retrospectively assign it a "MK1" label) this sort of nonsensical product says a great deal about Olympus, and indeed the entire camera business. If the MK2 itself is anything like the MK1 then addressing the cosmetics with a "limited edition" - for people stupid enough to care how the top plate looks - whilst failing to address the fact that the camera has only two good attributes embedded in a host of failings, is to treat the consumers as fools: probably correctly.1) The files are excellent, other things being equal. 2) The camera is small and light.However the general handling, firmware and ergonomics are pitifully bad. There's also the fact that in an industry where the replacement cycle is engineered to a frequency of about 18 months, the idea of "collectability" (as in film era hardware) is just a joke.
I am serious… and don’t call me Shirley
Craig from Nevada: The MSRP probably can't be sustained in this market. Discounts will follow.
I think the fisheye will find its way to $899 regular price.The 7-14mm will drop as well.The EM-5II will settle in at $999.
The MSRP probably can't be sustained in this market. Discounts will follow.
It is now May 2015, one year after the review. $750 for the body and $980 for the body with the 18-135mm lens. These are great times to be buying a camera.
EvilTed: Amateur Photographer from the UK, has a completely different review, claiming the noise handling is great and that the DR is better than the D750 or D810.
I smell a rat DP :(
79%, 82%, 76% 81% 81%-the results of the most recent 5 reviews (as shown on the margin of this page). The aggregate results for at least 4 out of the 5 cameras is the same.
Either the metrics and methods are inadequate or the practical reality is that the differences among the 5 cameras are wafer thin. The five noted above are all good cameras for their respective classes (overall). Inadequate means to create a meaning method for a customer to identify and evaluate the tradeoffs of each camera.
Then comes the question of the silver, gold or no award. Again, most cameras get something--and that determination is made by the reviewers.
Reading some of the comments here, some readers seem genuinely offended by the ratings and or some of the language in the review. What I see is DPReview attempting to use methods to differentiate between cameras that on aggregate perform very well.
This is just an observation from a general reader as he drinks his morning coffee.
Everlast66: What about giving the camera some credit for what it does, as opposed what doesn't?
For example, it is compared to heavier, chunkier and more expensive DSLRs and punished for not matching their IQ and battery life.It is compared to smaller sensor and lower IQ mirror-less cameras and punished for not being as compact.
It appears DPR are willing to give it only the negatives of both worlds!
Your personal preferences and the review are not the same things. The battery performance is not good for this camera. It should be dinged.
How you weight the battery performance is entirely up to you.
Sony reports 270 shots (viewfinder) and 350 shots (LCD screen). Suppose I want to take 271 shots with the viewfinder? That is hardly an unreasonable number.
Now take it on a outing where the temp is 1 C. The camera is rated to 0 C. I doubt if you get one half the number. Now take it on a camping trip.
The power of this and the OMD are inadequate for many situations where the weather and conditions are not ideal, but within the operating specs. The performance of the batteries should be criticized (ripped) when compared to a DSLR. It is the only way the manufacturers will improve their game.
It deserves to be criticized for its battery life (as should the Olympus E-M5 II. Extra batteries are bulk.
cinemascope: I am so happy that we have an excellent middle ground system that doesn't go to extremes for marketing purposes and is very good at what it is...I have nothing against FF but I am so tired of FF evangelists spreading the gospel like it is the best thing since sliced bread.Even if FF was cheaper than m4/3 I'd still happily pay more for m4/3 because this is what I want...Like I prefer compact Asian cars as opposed to American guzzlers, or like I'd rather buy organic food even if it costs twice...I also have been noticing a constant undertone in recent reviews here along the lines of "sure it is not as good as the likes of FF but bla bla" which is getting very tiring... I recall dpreview being a lot more neutral in that regard in the past...
I don't think that is what the OP is staing.
Alejandro Ruiz: A silver award is quite fair for a transition camera, waiting for the next sensor. Silver with some gold inclusion like best camera in the world for legacy lenses thanks to IBIS & EVF features, or for "still photography" thanks to Hi-Res, and maybe even for versatility or low light photo. Nice review, it's interesting to read different authors comments.I just think that the "handling" question is really over-sized. I understand that a complex interface, with lots of parameters and special features, is a a real challenge for reviewers in a week-end or one week "in-hands" experience. But we are not reviewers, we are users, we don't buy a camera for a week!We get done to the interface (SCP!) in a week or two, and then we (i) take months (years for me) to discover full capabilities of the diverse features.So this "handling" question is quite irrelevant to the real world user, reviewers have to keep this in mind, sorry guys it's your problem, not our ;-)
I don't take the silver or gold ratings serious. DPReview is pretty generous handing out these awards. Happily the reviews provide a pretty decent way to consider a camera's qualities and shortcomings.
historianx: Would rather have a Pelican 1510
I do and wouldn't trade it for this stuff.
D Webb: Many people want to snipe at Sony no matter what they do. I feel quite sorry for them. I am interested in only two things about these new lenses; price and performance. I do not mind paying a lot for excellence; I do mind paying lot for mediocre or compromised designs. So, if these test as well as we hope and have the Zeiss characteristics of microcontrast, transmission ad superb build quality, I don't mind investing in them. Five, ten years down the line, most of us will be glad we paid extra to get high quality. How often do you meet someone who wished they hadn't bought an excellent lens?
Actually, I wouldn't feel too sorry for Sony. Check the price of the A7. For less than $1300 you can buy a pretty darn good full frame camera. For $1598, you can get one with a lens. Tough to beat. An alternative path to full frame for those on a budget. No sniping on that point.
If this system competes with others on the basis of how consumers view the trade-offs of image quality, size and price, these lenses seem to suggest that Sony will have to prices these lenses very aggressively in order to make a go at it.
If I want small--micro 43 or APS-C are probably better choices. People have tired of dragging the full frame kit around everywhere. Other than maybe against FF DSLRs, I am not sure if Sony competes well on this front.
In terms of quality, this is a very good system, but maybe not the equal of full frame DSLR at this point but it will get there.
Price is the key. The price of the camera is attractive, but the lenses have to be priced decently. This system is the poor man's Full Frame. Sony needs to put people like me in a full frame system for substantially less than Canikon.
Craig from Nevada: This camera targets a very narrow market segment.
I wonder how deep the market segment is for full-frame astrophotography? How many cameras they need to sell to breakeven and who percentage of the market this represents?
This move makes sense. The DSLR world is changing and this is a niche that might be profitable.
I suppose they do a production run and sell them until they are gone. This camera will probably appeal to professionals and possibly teaching institutions, but outside of that, you are left with the hobbyist with deep pockets who can afford this camera and a regular camera.
Trying to explain to that partner/spouse why you need two or three 810s for your phtotography hobbies will be a challenge of ownership.
This camera targets a very narrow market segment.
Looks like a nice value. An attractive camera, loaded with features at a very nice price is always welcome.
Damn. Yet another set of cables and another battery charger for my kit.
Craig from Nevada: It had a good run. Olympus needs to ditch the retro look and build something that looks like a modern camera.
Sorry dude, keep trying. The e-m5 is ugly. I hope they update the body along with everything else.
You really shouldn't be so insecure about your gear.
In case you didn't know my comments were limited to the e-m5. It is ugly.
I have no intention of retracting a word.
Nice attempt at diversion and nonsense. The topic is the e-m5. I offered my opinion. Your rant about the e-m1 and e-m10 are really not relevant to my comment. Frankly, my opinions about the cameras you list are not expressed, so you no idea about what I think. So don't make stupid assumptions about my what my opinion may or may not be.
The e-m5 is ugly (not attractive). I hope Olympus thinks about a more contemporary design. A good camera should be attractive. Olympus should update the camera inside and out.